 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.73.207.141
In Reply to: The Passion Of The Christ posted by Wendell Narrod on April 16, 2006 at 09:25:19:
On the same level with professional wrestling. If it were about any other subject with as much sadism in it then it would have been banned or heavily rated XXX. This happens about every 10 years, another story of Christ. Just to make money! Maybe Hulk Hogan should direct! George Stevens tried hard with THE GRESTEST SOTRY EVER TOLD with Max Von Sydow as Christ and is probably the best portrayal yet. Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
Follow Ups:
if you don't like the movie fine. If you have insightful critiques even better. but making silly claims that the movie was made for the money just makes you look ignorant. If you knew anything about the history of this movie you would know that it is one of the few movies that was made without box office consideration.
No box office consideration? Puh-Lease! If Mr. Gibson meant this film as the "gift to humanity" he so obviously sees it to be, why didn't he also pick up the tab for us all to see it? I'll stick with the written version... ;-)
"No box office consideration? Puh-Lease!"Puh=lease explain why some one would put their own money into a huge production that on the surface has no box office appeal and no distribution deal. If you can explain how on would do that with profit in mind you win.
" If Mr. Gibson meant this film as the "gift to humanity" he so obviously sees it to be, why didn't he also pick up the tab for us all to see it? I'll stick with the written version... ;-)"
Do you understand the difference between a willingness to lose money for a personal vision and a desire to give money away for a personal vision. If you do then you should understand the lack of logiv behind your argument. If not then there is nothing to talk about.
to his personal wealth, without EVER thinking that it might be a profitable venture. Because Passion is a documentation of Christian beliefs, there can be no questioning the possible motivation of its creator. God himself wrote the screenplay (also risking His reputation in Hollywood), Gibson green-lighted it three days later. God, Mel, and everyone else involved were shocked when the film became a runaway success at the box office... After all, with so few Christians in the United States, the film's intended audience amounted to only a handful of people. There was NO WAY this film was EVER going to make money... the fact that it did is miraculous! Thank you for your sacrifice Mr. Gibson.Analog Scott, your logic is unflappable!
"to his personal wealth, without EVER thinking that it might be a profitable venture."Obviously. the first rule of film making is don't use your own money because it is a bad investment. Now lets consider Mel's situation when he decided to put millions of dollars into this movie out of his pockets. The movie had no distribution deal, no advertising budget and zero support form the commercial film world's infrastructure. No film has ever returned the the money that Gibson put into the this project without any such support. Then look at the sube=ject matte and style. the last biblical based movie to make profit was what? the 10 commandments? How many subtitled movies have ever made the money needed to make a movie like this one profitable? yeah Mel Gibson risked his millions because he thought The Passion was a great get rich quick scheme.
" Because Passion is a documentation of Christian beliefs, there can be no questioning the possible motivation of its creator."
That is simply idiotic. You guys aren't qustioning his motives you are just inventing them. Your presumptions would be no less ridiculous if the movie were about anything else. Christianity has nothing to do with it.
" God himself wrote the screenplay (also risking His reputation in Hollywood), Gibson green-lighted it three days later. God, Mel, and everyone else involved were shocked when the film became a runaway success at the box office... After all, with so few Christians in the United States, the film's intended audience amounted to only a handful of people."
Dude name the last biblical based subtitled mega hit tht ha no distribution deal or advertising budget. if you think anyone expected as box office hit you are clueless. Nothing like this has ever happened. If Mel Gibson did this movie for the money he is a genius.
"There was NO WAY this film was EVER going to make money... the fact that it did is miraculous!"
It is. It broke just about every rule in box office history. But hey, if you can cite one prediction by you or Mel Gibson or anybody else that this would be a box office hit please do so. prove me wrong.
"Thank you for your sacrifice Mr. Gibson.
Analog Scott, your logic is unflappable!"
Maybe you should invest all your money in making another biblical based subtitled movie with no distribution deal. I mean if it's such an obvious money maker should work a second time. Don't miss your opportunity to get rich quick. All you need to do is risk everything you own.
I'll refrain from trying to persuade you any further re Mr. Gibson's intentions or motivations. Especially since you have decided to make this an ugly affair... referring to my obviously sarcastic commentary with: "That is simply idiotic." I'll wrap this up by saying, enjoy your Lethal Weapon movie marathon. I hope you're not so rude to people in real life (if you have one)!
You are the one who deposited sarcasm in a thread in which, up to that point, consisted of reasoned, intelligent discourse. I have heard that statistically less than 10% of films make money (generate a profit). If you want to make money, film is not the investment you should be in. When is the last time you invested your net worth on anything? Did you know it would be a sure bet? One question you have still not answered is why, if Passion was sure to be a money maker, why was there not anyone at any studio willing to front the money, given that they are in the business of making money, and presumably know a hit when they see it?
But here's the simple answer to your question ie:"One question you have still not answered is why, if Passion was sure to be a money maker, why was there not anyone at any studio willing to front the money, given that they are in the business of making money, and presumably know a hit when they see it?"
They gravely miscalculated the appeal a film like this could have, and I'll bet they'll think a little more carefully about the next "religion" picture pitch that comes their way. It's not hard to imagine the types of preconceptions or biases someone in Hollywood might have about a project like Passion. I can honestly say that I'm not really surprised that the film has done as well as it has. Also, the notion that "they" will know a hit when they see it becomes more and more dubious. Have you noticed that all the big studios now have their little boutique brands like Fox Searchlight and Sony Classics? These exist only because of successful independent films from smaller houses like Miramax. Maybe Gibson couldn't get anybody to bite on his idea because HE IS PART of the big blockbuster-action-mulch-engine that basically shuns films like the one he wanted to make. It's like being a loud, obnoxious frat-boy who one day decides to instantly become a fey intellectual. In other words, maybe he was trying to sell his picture to the wrong people. Why would this surprise anyone?
Anyhoo, cheers to ya
Sarcasm is not humor. If sarcasm was humor, it would be called humor. Lemme see if I understand your last point: Gibson pitches this film to multiple studios, people who are paid very well to spot a money making film. All those studios make the same miscalculation? Oddly enough, though, Gibson, generally an actor, though sometimes moonlighting as a director, and occasionally as a producer, was able to see the enormous profit potential of the film where the studios could not?Did Miramax and these other so-called independent (which are not independent, but that is for another day) studios line up to contribute? The engine, as you put it, is interested in making gobs of money, and do not care what dress it wears. If explosions sell pictures, they make explosions. Look at the history of Hollywood. They have run through their gangster era, their western era, their science fiction era, their romantic comedy era, their horror era, all in the name of commerce. If Gibson comes in with an idea that will generate bucks, they do not ask whether the film contains explosions, they ante up.
The bias in Hollywood was that a religious picture cannot make money. Your argument that Gibson is part of that estalblishment only supports the argument that this was not a film designed, nor one he believed, would make gobs of money. The logic is thus: If Hollywood does not believe that a religious film can make money, and if Gibson is part of the Hollywood system, then Gibson did not believe the film would make money.
Your argument that the studios will think twice about releasing a religious film also supports that argument. Hollywood is not about crashes, explosions, or any other subject matter, except to the extent that they make money for the studios. They will willingly release religious films if they make money on them.
And not being surprised that the film has done well is not the same thing as saying that it was expected to do well. There are stocks that I am not surprised have done well, but when it came time to invest, I did not believe they would do well. Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy.
Sure it is, I mean, it CAN be humorous.It's becoming clear that you did not properly absorb the point that I'm attempting to make, so I'll make this short and sweet:
1.Mel Gibson knew that there was a market for this film.
2.Mel Gibson made the film with his own money.
3.Mel Gibson made (and is still making) shitloads of money off his film.
4.If you think Mel Gibson made this film purely as "personal sacrifice" you better think again... Why would he make a film that he believed no one would want to see?
5.If you cannot understand what I'm saying, let's call it a day.
Cheers
ROSS: Then there is this return. It would seem that God is saying, 'I will bless this thing.' Obviously, He has.
GIBSON: He doesn't always smile on you with material reward. That's not always necessarily part of it. In this case it was. But I was prepared for it to not work at all. I didn't know that it would. Fortunately, it touched a lot of people. Therefore, they went and saw it and recommended it to other people. I have to say the champion of this push was the evangelical community. They were really rock solid. It did extremely well and many people loved it, and they sent correspondence. But I got some correspondences that were on the lines of 'ah, it was great, but I wish I could have taken my Aunt Martha or Uncle Frank.' They stayed away because they had heard of the more wrenching aspects of the film. It's pretty brutal in spots – and intentionally so. But I got enough of those things, like, 'I wish I could have taken a 15-year-old,' so I thought maybe there is room to reenter the edit and find another way, keeping the impact of the film, the integrity of the film, but extracting some of the more wrenching or brutal aspects of the film, and therefore making it available to a wider audience. That's, in effect, what I've done. It didn't get a PG-13. It's still hard, but it is not as hard. It's not as big of a release as the other one. It's already been out there, but bearing in mind that it's been softened some to attract a wider audience, I think it may do all right. And if it doesn't, that's OK, too.
ROSS: Are you disappointed by the fact that you weren't recognized by the degree you might have been at the Oscars?GIBSON: No. Disappointment doesn't come into it, because I didn't expect anything.
ROSS: Really?
GIBSON: Well, if you don't expect anything, you can't be disappointed. It is exactly what I expected not to be recognized, so I didn't do the massive marketing campaign. I just put the film out there and said if they are going to judge it, then judge it on its own merits.
Everyone knows that making a religious film targeted towards believers, given that less than 50% of the American population attends church regularly, of which teenage boys have no interest in attending, much less in taking their dates to, and which offer no hope of any foreplay, together with depictions of extreme gore and violence, for lack of better words, and subtitled, requiring attendees to actually read (they do not read at home, why in a movie?) is a sure recipe for megabucks. Gibson obviously knew this. Heck, I can't quite figure out why the multiplex is not littered with Passion, Part Deaux.
According to you!;-)
nt
I rented the DVD. I turned it off when Jesus was scourged by the gang of sadistic Roman soldiers. I certainly wouldn't let any of my children look at it and anyone I held to respect. And I never want to ever see it again! It's cinematography was sloppy. BRAVEHEART was much better done from a production value point of view. And this attempt to be truthful to this extinct foreign tongue was ludicrous. But it has a following I'm sure. In 10 more years we'll have another rendering. Gee, I wonder what Orson Wells would have done. He did want to make a Jesus film with himself in the title role. Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
"I rented the DVD. I turned it off when Jesus was scourged by the gang of sadistic Roman soldiers. I certainly wouldn't let any of my children look at it and anyone I held to respect. And I never want to ever see it again!"Your comments above are very much like what others have told me. In fact it was comments like those that lead me to not see the movie. It was enough for me to know I had no interest in seeing it.
" It's cinematography was sloppy. BRAVEHEART was much better done from a production value point of view. And this attempt to be truthful to this extinct foreign tongue was ludicrous."
having not seen the movie it's hard for me to respond, however I see why someone would do a movie like this in the actual language if one thought they wer truly dedicated to absolute accuracy.
"But it has a following I'm sure."
Clearly.
"In 10 more years we'll have another rendering."
Entirely possible.
" Gee, I wonder what Orson Wells would have done. He did want to make a Jesus film with himself in the title role. Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey"
Not sure the point of that but your assertion that this movie was made for profit still doesn't hold water. I suggest you read up on the back story of the making of this film.
This was a film that Gibson could not get the major studios to bite on. The bean counters did not think it had any prospect to make any money. Gibson financed the film himself. Hollywood execs. live to make money. Look at much of the dreck they release. To think that a film was actually designed to make money, and then the bean counters simply failed to see what they so regularly see in other projects, is ludicrous. And since when have subtitled films made money in America?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
